• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you think Intel could destroy AMD in making video cards?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Looking forward to Broadwell K- hopefully the Iris Pro version will be powerful enough to handle modern games at 1080p without turning IQ way down.
 
boozzer said:
apus are the future. once it can run games in 1080p on med settings, it will be main stream for sure = market share.

most apus can run games in low settings in 1080p now right?
Click to expand...

APUs will remain specifically low-end gaming until they make a massive APU in die size (300mm2 on top of the CPU architecture), 200W with faster RAM technology that just isn't there.. and do it without being more expensive than the dGPU option.
 
I have the Iris Pro on my Mac and it's actually a pretty good IGPU, I mean I don't think I otherwise wouldn't know it wasn't a discreet card of some sort. Runs Steam games like a dream.
Intel knows is an extremely expensive and competitive market to get into. Nvidia claims it costs billions just to come up with a new GPU and that's quite a risk for a first time venture not knowing if they'll even be able to cost effectively make one that outshines Nvidia or AMD's card. I don't think INtel's investors would even allow such an idea after the Larrabee debacle.
 
yeah but one question though

Why wasn't there intel Iris graphics in every i5 and i7? hell if you wanted to even see iris you had to buy a Mac.

Iris was the only thing to compete with the high end AMD APUs
 
john5220 said:
Why wasn't there intel Iris graphics in every i5 and i7? hell if you wanted to even see iris you had to buy a Mac.
Click to expand...

Because its incredibly expensive for that weak performance.

It's a large chuck of the die and it required a big chunk of embedded vram. Unless the form factor or brand commands a premium, there's no way its competitive with mid-range dGPU due to price.
 
john5220 said:
yeah but one question though

Why wasn't there intel Iris graphics in every i5 and i7? hell if you wanted to even see iris you had to buy a Mac.

Iris was the only thing to compete with the high end AMD APUs
Click to expand...

Because it doesnt make sense. Same reason why AMDs own APUs lose in cost/performance to its own CPU+GPU options.

Iris Pro is for situations where low power consumption and small size is the key.
 
lavaheadache said:
Larrabee, google it.

Intel attempted and failed to produce a high end card
Click to expand...

They were trying to make a GPU made out of tiny x86 cores, it was a long shot to begin with.

If Intel took their Iris Pro GPU, and made one comparable in size to one of AMD or Nvidias GPU's, given their process advantage, they would have no problems matching or surpassing AMD and Nvidia in every facet.
 
hawtdawg said:
They were trying to make a GPU made out of tiny x86 cores, it was a long shot to begin with.

If Intel took their Iris Pro GPU, and made one comparable in size to one of AMD or Nvidias GPU's, given their process advantage, they would have no problems matching or surpassing AMD and Nvidia in every facet.
Click to expand...

But it wouldnt bring in the required margins that Intels stockholders demand.
 
Intel could doom AMD in graphic cards, but they don't want or need. It will still take some years(and much more money than AMD graphic division puts on R&D today) to do this, but they can do.
 
ShintaiDK said:
But it wouldnt bring in the required margins that Intels stockholders demand.
Click to expand...

You mean selling a mid-range ~300mm2 die at $600 or more is not enough margins? :/

And heck, those who believe if Intel made it, it would beat NV or AMD, then well, they can price it even higher.

Intel isn't gaining on mobiles and they have REALLY TRIED very hard. It's taken them a long time to match last-gen SOCs from Qualcomm & Apple on perf/w.
 
Last edited:
Silverforce11 said:
You mean selling a mid-range ~300mm2 die at $600 or more is not enough margins? :/

And heck, those who believe if Intel made it, it would beat NV or AMD, then well, they can price it even higher.
Click to expand...

You forget how R&D and volume works. And how much of the market is willing to pay 600$

Also only nVidia is making money of the current 2 dGPU makers.
 
john5220 said:
wow you are right apparently it is real, but intel is so rich how come they can't do this? if they beat AMD in CPU why not do the same with GPU?
Click to expand...
Maybe cause they want to stick with what they are best at instead of throwing money around "beating" everybody at everything

What is the obsession with "beating" everyone these days? Is this a side effect from you guys getting ribbons even for 8th place?
 
john5220 said:
yeah but one question though

Why wasn't there intel Iris graphics in every i5 and i7? hell if you wanted to even see iris you had to buy a Mac.

Iris was the only thing to compete with the high end AMD APUs
Click to expand...

You're completely ignoring who the target market is.

Explain to me, again why anyone wants an AMD APU. Try and do that and you'll see why intel doesn't compete with high end AMD APUs. Try to recommend a High End AMD APU on any forum and watch yourself get torn to shreds.

This argument is similar to saying "Why doesn't Mercedes put 6 wheels on their cars so they can have the most wheels on their cars and beat all the other manufacturers!" Giving consumers something they don't need or want will not make them purchase your product. Intel focuses its efforts on power consumption of their CPUs to compete on the mobile market, and "just good enough" gpu performance to compete with Apple and Snapdragon. Competing with AMD's APU? Not a priority for anyone...
 
Last edited:
Intel is getting close to wiping out mid range GPUs with their IGPUs, they don't really need a discrete card entry at this point. Maybe if Nvidia and AMD start to fail because Intel has taken away 80% of their markets then Intel will capitalize on that for an easy win with a single high end discrete project (targeted more at mobile but also available for desktop).
 
Silverforce11 said:
You mean selling a mid-range ~300mm2 die at $600 or more is not enough margins? :/

And heck, those who believe if Intel made it, it would beat NV or AMD, then well, they can price it even higher.
Click to expand...

Its hard to sell products at high margins when you are not a monopoly and you actually have competition.

Intel will need to blow Billions of dollars just to catch up with AMD & Nvidia.
 
Just a note. Before you go around comparing intel's architecture and process you must address the elephant in the room. Drivers.

Intel's drivers are poor and not optimized for games to the extend that AMD and Nvidia optimize. If you want brute force architectural comparisons this handicap must be taken into account. With quality drivers I would not be surprised to see intel's igp 30-50% faster than it is not.
 
Fox5 said:
Intel is getting close to wiping out mid range GPUs with their IGPUs, they don't really need a discrete card entry at this point. Maybe if Nvidia and AMD start to fail because Intel has taken away 80% of their markets then Intel will capitalize on that for an easy win with a single high end discrete project (targeted more at mobile but also available for desktop).
Click to expand...

Close?

A gtx770 or R285 class is now mid-range, or even towards low-end due to the prices at <$200.
 
Rakehellion said:
Intel is only recently bringing their integrated GPUs to palatable status, so it'll be a while before they can compete with the big boys.

I'm sure Intel could make high performace motorcycles if they put enough money into it, but currently they have no idea how.
Click to expand...

Making a fast GPU is extremely straightforward: add more cores. With recently I guess you meant in 2012 with Ivy Bridge. Intel simply didn't use more die space (and power budget) to add more EUs.
 
witeken said:
Making a fast GPU is extremely straightforward: add more cores. With recently I guess you meant in 2012 with Ivy Bridge. Intel simply didn't use more die space (and power budget) to add more EUs.
Click to expand...

Of course they use pixie dust to add more EUs
 
Silverforce11 said:
Intel isn't gaining on mobiles and they have REALLY TRIED very hard. It's taken them a long time to match last-gen SOCs from Qualcomm & Apple on perf/w.
Click to expand...
Intel's 32nm Atoms are very competitive against 28nm ARM SoCs. Peformance/watt isn't the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top